Social Media Firms Have Come to Ban 'Kicking and Screaming', Says Australia eSafety Boss

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has said that social media companies are now implementing stricter content moderation “kicking and screaming”, highlighting growing pressure on tech platforms to combat harmful online content. The remarks underline the increasing responsibility social media firms face in protecting users, regulating abusive content, and responding to government mandates.

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, made the statement during a recent parliamentary session, signaling that while platforms have historically resisted strict moderation, regulatory and public pressure is increasingly forcing change.

What the eSafety Commissioner Said

Inman Grant emphasized that social media platforms have been reluctant to enforce bans on harmful content, but they are now acting due to external pressure.

“Social media firms have come to ban content, often kicking and screaming, but the direction is clear. Online safety is non-negotiable,” she told lawmakers.

She highlighted the role of legislation, penalties, and public scrutiny in compelling tech companies to adopt more rigorous moderation policies.

Why Content Moderation Matters

Content moderation has become a crucial issue in the digital era. Social media platforms must manage billions of posts each day, including:

Hate speech and harassment targeting individuals or communities

Misinformation and fake news, which can influence public opinion and elections

Illegal content, such as child exploitation material or violent imagery

Self-harm and suicide-related content, posing direct safety risks

Regulators argue that ignoring harmful content can have real-world consequences, including mental health risks, societal polarization, and erosion of public trust.

Australia’s Regulatory Approach

Australia has emerged as a global leader in online safety regulation. Under the Online Safety Act, the eSafety Commissioner can:

Issue removal notices for harmful content

Impose financial penalties on non-compliant platforms

Enforce rapid-response procedures for high-risk material

These measures are part of a broader strategy to hold social media companies accountable and ensure platforms prioritize user protection.

Social Media Companies’ Reluctance

Despite external pressure, platforms often resist strict moderation for several reasons:

Balancing free speech and safety

Volume of content, making automated moderation a necessity

Legal and cultural differences across countries

Business considerations, as moderation can affect engagement metrics

Inman Grant’s comments reflect that regulatory pressure is often the main catalyst for change, pushing companies to implement policies they might otherwise avoid.

Implications for Users

For social media users, stricter moderation may result in:

Safer online environments, particularly for children and vulnerable groups

Faster removal of harmful or abusive content

Increased accountability for creators and users, discouraging negative behavior

However, some critics warn that over-moderation could inadvertently suppress legitimate speech, emphasizing the need for transparent, consistent rules.

Challenges in Implementation

While regulations have accelerated action, content moderation remains complex:

Platforms must process millions of posts daily, often using AI tools

Contextual understanding is necessary to avoid false positives

Users may attempt to evade moderation, posting on less-regulated platforms

Legal appeals and transparency requests can slow enforcement

These challenges mean that even with regulations, moderation is ongoing and iterative, requiring continuous improvement.

Global Trends in Regulation

Australia’s experience reflects a global trend toward holding tech companies accountable. Other countries, including the UK, Canada, and EU member states, have introduced laws requiring platforms to:

Monitor and remove harmful content

Report safety compliance regularly

Maintain clear and fair moderation policies

Experts suggest that coordinated international regulation may become increasingly common as governments seek to protect online users while balancing free expression.

The Role of Government Pressure

Government oversight has been pivotal in accelerating change. By combining:

Legislation and fines

Mandatory reporting requirements

Public scrutiny and transparency campaigns

Regulators can ensure that social media platforms prioritize safety over engagement metrics. Inman Grant’s remarks highlight that without such pressure, platforms may have continued reluctance to enforce bans effectively.

Looking Ahead

The eSafety Commissioner anticipates that social media platforms will continue to strengthen moderation practices, but ongoing oversight will remain essential. Future priorities may include:

Transparent moderation decisions and appeal mechanisms

Improved tools for user reporting of harmful content

Enhanced protection for children and vulnerable groups

Global collaboration to harmonize safety standards

Experts believe that user safety, accountability, and transparency will remain central as social media continues to evolve.

Conclusion

Julie Inman Grant’s statement that social media companies have acted “kicking and screaming” underscores a pivotal moment in online safety. While platforms are adopting stricter content moderation policies, regulatory oversight remains crucial to ensure they protect users, uphold standards, and maintain trust.

Australia’s approach provides a model for other nations, demonstrating that legal frameworks, public accountability, and continuous monitoring are essential in creating a safer, more responsible online environment. As regulations tighten globally, social media companies will likely continue evolving under pressure, balancing user safety with freedom of expression.